I've been away from this blog, and blogging in general, for a while with grant deadlines and end of semester issues for the past some weeks, but am beginning to catch up again as the holiday break is about to begin. This place looks much nicer since the last time I wrote here - thank you Martin for really sprucing up the joint! I look forward to exploring the new features, and to contributing a bit more often. For now, while taking a break from grading (or is it marking for folks in the UK?) exams and term papers, I want to share something I played a small part in the making of, something you might find useful if you encounter creationism much in your daily lives.
Over here in America, we've had quite a load of it, as you may know, and those of us teaching evolution are always looking for effective ways to address the same old creationist arguments that keep cropping up in new guises - a tiresome game often compared to whack-a-mole.
Out here in the hinterland of California's agricultural San Joaquin Valley, we live in something of a bastion for conservatism (both political and christian varieties) and creationism (yes, even California has such a bastion!). In my biology classes at California State University, Fresno, which tend to be quite evolutionary, naturally, I am often confronted with students who are either overtly or covertly creationist. I even lost a graduate student from my own lab to Jesus recently (a tale I may regale you with another time, perhaps over Christmas)!
Given this context, therefore, we were delighted to host, two weeks ago, a most graceful and highly skilled practitioner of creationist-whack-a-mole in the person of the lovely Dr. Eugenie (Genie) Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education - an organization whose energies are devoted almost entirely to combating creationism and keeping it out of science classrooms in America.
She drew quite a large crowd - beyond our expectations, filling the largest audiorium on campus to standing-room-only capacity - and many a creationist stood up afterwards to challenge her. Most of the questions she had undoubtedly been dealing with throughout her entire career - yet she remained admirably calm and polite, disarming the creationists even as she eviscerated their "arguments" and serenly launched them over the ropes (kind of like watching Sehwag bat!).
Anyway, I was able to record her entire talk on my iPhone and subsequently sync it with the Powerpoint slides she was kind enough to share, to create a podcast and a slidecast. The former may be viewed/downloaded from my Darwin's Bulldogs website [and update: via the iTunes store], while the latter I have embedded here below. (With the caveat that this is the first time I'm trying to embed a slideshare presentation here, so things may not quite work as intended - let me know if you have any trouble viewing it here, and feel free to go directly to the slidecast page). This could prove handy the next time you run into a creationist. Enjoy!
http://layscience.net/trackback/852
Quick update: the iTunes store now includes a podcast version of this, which you can subscribe to via this link.
My degree is in Engineering, so I am not against science per se'[I loved studying Math & science, & history]. Nor do I agree with many positions of traditional creationism, though I do read the Bible. I believe in the idea of evolution [IE: we should evolve to a higher state of being] but not Darwinism. I won't accept the idea that apes or ape-like creatures were my ancestors nor will I teach it to my children. Darwinism is based to some degree on science, but what most Darwinist don't say is that its rooted in both a world view & a personal tragedy he had [the death of a beloved daughter] which caused him to disbelieve in God. Darwin's cousin was Francis Galton [their families were related by both blood & marriage] who also came up with a theory roughly at the same time as Darwin- & apparently collaborated while developing their theories. Galton's theory was called Eugenics. While the core of Darwinism was [random] natural selection & 'Survival of the Fittest', Eugenics was based on the idea that the 'Fittest should Decide 'Who's FIT to Survive''. It was pseudo-science an Elitist & Racist world view disguised as science [Darwin's grandson became the president of the Eugenics Society - his name Charles GALTON Darwin]. Many elites in UK, US, & Europe embraced eugenics whole-heartedly. From this world view came the NAZI Holocaust.
Also what Darwinist & those who insist that the universe just happened [The Big Bang only theorizes on what happened afterwards- not before -because the implications are that the universe came from Nowhere & Nothing & for No reason - which is NONSENSE] won't discuss is that 2 of the giants of modern science - Sir Isaac Newton [before Darwin] & Einstein [after Darwin] made statements clearly indicating a firm belief in God [Einstein: I Don't Believe God plays Dice with the Universe... Newton: About the time of the end will arise a body of men who'll insist on the correct interpretation of the Bible amongst much Clamor & Opposition]. Needless to say Darwinism [just 150yrs old] & Big Bang Theory [just 80yrs old] are presented as - case proven [it isn't]. They come from evidence viewed from a World View [scientist pretend that science is totally independent of politics- too often its not]. Thus there's not much room for God, in Institutions with the power to shape the Public's World View. Any attempt to teach that a Living World may involve a Creative Intelligent Life-force is met with much 'Clamor & Opposition' from so-called main-stream science. Lets be clear- I'm not advocating for a 6000yr universe or that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark - that view misinterprets what the Bible actually said & the Bible doesn't speak of dinosaurs on the Ark [they couldn't have even fit on it]. Those of us who believe that life involves a Creative Intelligent Life-force [IE: God], look ridiculous making such infantile arguments. The main argument is- theories that the Universe just popped into existence from nothing nowhere & for no reason, that life & intelligence can just randomly come from non-life & non-intelligence ['I don't believe God plays Dice with the Universe'], or that apes are our ancestors [if you insist in claiming that heritage that's your business] defies Logic & is UnProven [not meaning there's no evidence used to support this view - BUT - Evidence in of itself isn't PROOF]. They're estimates & extrapolations [scientific lingo for Educated GUESSES] which seems as if they're right but could very well be wrong.
Hard to know where to start with Marc's comment. The long paragraphs make it worse, but I shall do my best.
1 That you refuse to accept the fact that humans and chimpanzees (and gorillas, and orang-utans, etc etc) are descended from a common ape ancestor is irrelevant. There is plenty of evidence that confirms this model, what is arguable is exactly when and why this occurred. You are using the argument from personal incredulity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Personal_Incredulity
2 You have, as many do, misused the word ‘random’ about natural selection. It isn’t random, although mutation and variation are (within limits). Selection is very definitely *not* random. I modelled this with my science class last week, using dice to simulate the characteristics of offspring in a population, and a rule to eliminate those less likely to survive. We showed that the result was both predictable and repeatable. They’re 14 year olds.
3 What inspired Darwin to investigate the biological observations that led to his theories (and our current understanding of evolution, not this personalised ‘Darwinism’) is interesting historically, but irrelevant to science unless it can be shown to influence his data. Many great advances and discoveries were inspired by strong emotion or tragedy – consider Gandhi’s actions, for example, as a response to injustice.
4 That politicians have used (misused, abused) the ideas of evolution can hardly be blamed on the theory, or on Darwin himself. Rutherford was not responsible for the use of the atomic bomb. By your reasoning, medical doctors researching child obesity are at fault for allowing politicians to use their data to justify social policy. NB: Godwin’s Law failure on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
5 It doesn’t really matter that Newton and Einstein may have believed in God. Newton followed alchemical practices and thought 7 was a magic number. Einstein struggled with quantum theory. Neither studied evolutionary theory in detail, as far as I’m aware. This is the argument from authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
6 Yes, we tend to treat both evolution and the Big Bang as fact. That’s because they have not been disproved, despite many efforts to do so. In fact, many politicians seem to have had a vested interest in religious, rather than scientific explanations. In the end, science manages to move on despite their efforts (compare Stalin’s encouragement of Lysenko's use of Lamarckism and the consequences) If you have evidence – not speculation, not religious dogma, not personal incredulity – then feel free to share it. That’s how science works, after all.
7 That ‘main-stream science’ opposes the idea of a ‘Creative Intelligent Life-Force’ is hardly surprising. It’s not falsifiable, so it isn’t science. And to object that it doesn’t get discussed in public institutions is irrelevant, unless you’re suggesting that churches (and mosques, etc etc) should start to offer science-based lectures on evolution and cosmology. (How about it, everyone? We could call it the Omega course…) I personally think there is too much influence from religion in public life, from school prayers to bishops in the House of Lords.
8 Again, it’s hardly surprising that all creationists, those claiming intelligent design is better than evolution and those decrying the Big Bang, are lumped together. It’s more your problem than mine. It certainly isn’t the fault of the scientific community – although it is our problem – that all of those who ignore evidence they don’t like are grouped together, and considered not to be doing science. Most scientists don’t claim that their theories cover every detail and are perfect in every respect. They may turn out to be wrong in some details – almost certainly *something* will be. But they do usually work, and they are better than the alternatives we have seen to date. I’m going to finish by repeating my offer, one made by many branches of science, by individuals and by institutions:
If you have evidence, bring it.
Ian
Ian - Thanks for the point-by-point response to that comment/rant from Marc which is an example of just the kind of whack-a-mole exercise I was referring to: same old arguments mixed with ad hominems accusing Darwin of eugenics and worse. I hope Marc reads your well-considered response and gives it a serious think before mouthing off again.
To hell with them 4 this kind of cash splash parça kontör in this credit crisis. There are a lot issues to deal with kontür as to regards money and will be appreciated not to hear this from parça kontör the media 4 its publicity stunts. A lot people are dying just because they can't afford it and Kalou from a very poor African country and background can't use the oppurtunity 4 charity. 4 the bayan arkadas good samaritan Terry, that money would save countless lives if you had donated it to Kanu's Heart Foundation arkada? Celebrate what?!!!!.....birthday?.when u guys knew u have a decisive n test of superiority match against man utd ds weekend. If u all lyk drink n get drunk n perform woefully against man utd n c wat i'll kizlarla sohbet do 2 u ppl.y dnt k?zlarla sohbet u jst yemek tarifleri postpone d celebratn till after our parça kontör victory over man utd n i'll u guyz in getting drunk in my own arkadaslik siteleri domain..Up until my mid-20s, my ability to reproduce had seks been almost entirely a burden: the cost of contraception, the worry of pregnancy, the unsettling presence of blood. With dul kadinlar that track record, padding my bank account seemed like the least my ovaries could do for me. My mother cried when I sold my ova. Friends said, "I would never do that." Older women swore I'd regret it. But I do not miss those 12 eggs, hardly ever think of them, wouldn't know them if I passed them in the street. I think instead of the long, thrilling trips I took with the money—to Bangkok, Istanbul, Cape Town. indir Devaluing my body, you say? It sure didn't feel like that in first class.